Doodo's Musings

edited October 2011 in General Chat
Why when experiencing life dos the brain function with certain brain waves? How does it select those types of waves, what is the process behind this? I heard it's chemical response? In a healthy brain scan, they know what to look for...these waves light up on a scan like Christmas day.

Could a brain function using different waves for different activities than our average human brain selects? Are these waves truly ideal, for experiences, for reality, for these activities they are tied to? Must it be that way?

Is the brain ultimately a receptor for the layers of reality that it filters? How accurate is it, is it all entirely objective? Is it the only form of experience, reading these layers? Is it true observation, do we make a true, indisputable connection to reality?

Do these waves make a true connection to "reality" are their similar receiving waves outside of our human bodies? What is the universe made up of? Are we connected? Is it a issue of dimension?...??
Do our bodies, minds, brains, make waves that are actually on the same level as the objective plains of reality, existence?


These brain waves, are only from a impartially working, developed brain. The true brain power, the true evolution, creation of brain isn't truly present.Ultimately, we may not be connected to a truer, more comprehensive form of reality.

Brain "waves" are a name given to phenomena that are observed when measuring the brain via electroencephalographs and similar technology. The overall rise and fall of electrical potentials in localized areas. Because they're easily observed, they are useful in correlating brain states and brain function. But you shouldn't confuse them with how the brain works.

Similarly, an experienced mechanic could use the sound an engine makes to diagnose how it is operating. But we wouldn't ascribe the sound waves with any sort of utility to the engine. You could say that brain waves are indications of an overall pattern of activity within the brain.

The activity pattern is driven primarily through neural activity. That activity is signalling by discharge of an electrichemical potential in the neurons and by neurotransmitters. The activity at this scale is much faster and more fine-grained than simple chemical responses. But hormones and other chemicals do produce system-wide changes in activity as well.

So I might read your question as "could a brain function using different overall patterns for activities than our average human brain does". My opinion is yes and no.

Yes, it's entirely conceivable that a brain could exist that uses radically different techniques to process and use information that our brains do. In such a sense, the brain waves would be very different.

But at the same time, such a brain is not going to pop into existence in a human. Just like all the engines that Ford puts in cars work just about the same way, all human brains appear to have certain overall processing techniques that are very conservative (even if we don't understand the details of how the processing works).
«13456713

Comments

  • edited March 2011
    ..... totally.
  • edited March 2011
    dude, pass some more o' that weed
  • edited March 2011
    Humans actually go through several stages of brain wave activity from childhood to adulthood. Adulthood is 'optimal' because it allows best perception in a physical world.

    Brain waves have nothing to do with hypothetical superstrings outside of the fact that under that theory, brain matter is composed of superstrings as is all matter.

    Altering brain wave activity may put you into a coma. The issue of human perception of the surrounding universe goes beyond something as simple as brain waves.
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »

    Altering brain wave activity may put you into a coma. The issue of human perception of the surrounding universe goes beyond something as simple as brain waves.

    I'd agree, then why are humans so sure what exists and doesn't exist? Such, as oh, i don't know, spirits.

    I agree, and yet we can't separate things from the validating process of existence while existing to decide whether or not things exist outside of our selves. We need first hand experience, we need academic principals. Hell, we need to say what red, blue, green is...
    wrote:
    consider trying to not create patterns where patterns were not set up by design. stucco wall texture or a field of flowers for example

    your brain is wired to view reality according to specific constructs. numbers, patterns, groups and pairs.

    tangentially you have a limited scope of sensations. this limits your possible understanding of the objective reality

    Just another response I got else where.
  • edited March 2011
    Insanity results from unlimited sensory input. Your brain doesn't posses the computational capability of inputting every single sensation.

    I think most people believe in spirits or a spirit to varying degree throughout the world.

    That said I think it's easy to postulate a distinct dimension of non corporeal, non linear, non terminating entities if we inhabit a universe populated by the opposite.
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Insanity results from unlimited sensory input. Your brain doesn't posses the computational capability of inputting every single sensation.

    I think most people believe in spirits or a spirit to varying degree throughout the world.

    That said I think it's easy to postulate a distinct dimension of non corporeal, non linear, non terminating entities if we inhabit a universe populated by the opposite.

    I completely agree with you.

    And I think spirits only exist in a varying degree in "this version of reality". So, I agree with what you say.
  • edited March 2011
    I'll have some of whatever he's having!
  • edited March 2011
    Origami wrote: »
    I'll have some of whatever he's having!

    Oh, quit being so sally...

    Harry funny, harry funny...
  • edited March 2011
    I personally believe that it's easy for people to come to the conclusion that spirits exist just because they don't have any other explanations for certain happenings of the world. However, just because you can't conceive any other explanation, does not mean there is a supernatural cause.

    Until there is proof that something is caused by supernatural forces (or anything else for that matter), there's no reason to believe it. It's best to just admit that you don't know rather than fill it in with the hope of something magical doing it, I think. The universe is already amazing as is without magic.
  • edited March 2011
    I can't confirm whether spirits exist or not, I can only confirm that 98% of the people that claim to see them are charlatans.
  • edited March 2011
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    I personally believe that it's easy for people to come to the conclusion that spirits exist just because they don't have any other explanations for certain happenings of the world. However, just because you can't conceive any other explanation, does not mean there is a supernatural cause.

    Until there is proof that something is caused by supernatural forces (or anything else for that matter), there's no reason to believe it. It's best to just admit that you don't know rather than fill it in with the hope of something magical doing it, I think. The universe is already amazing as is without magic.

    Supernatural presumes that the occurrence is unnatural, above nature, aberrant of nature or magical. Sherlock Holmes once said that from a drop of water a man can deduce the existence of an ocean. From the existence of life, I do not believe there is anything supernatural or magical about deducing superior life. Some may deem this supernatural, but I believe it to simply be a deduction. Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, as the old saying goes.
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Supernatural presumes that the occurrence is unnatural, above nature, aberrant of nature or magical. Sherlock Holmes once said that from a drop of water a man can deduce the existence of an ocean. From the existence of life, I do not believe there is anything supernatural or magical about deducing superior life. Some may deem this supernatural, but I believe it to simply be a deduction. Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, as the old saying goes.

    Hats off to you! What a post. He says what I mean to say, only says it well. :p

    Thanks for sharing everyone.
    Origami wrote: »
    I can't confirm whether spirits exist or not, I can only confirm that 98% of the people that claim to see them are charlatans.

    I can not deny or confirm this either. But, even if there is two percent, that is enough to be valid up against the 98. Unless you're pleading insanity.
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Sherlock Holmes once said that from a drop of water a man can deduce the existence of an ocean. From the existence of life, I do not believe there is anything supernatural or magical about deducing superior life. Some may deem this supernatural, but I believe it to simply be a deduction. Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, as the old saying goes.

    Sherlock Holmes however, was fictional
  • edited March 2011
    You know, sometimes I think that we ourselves are but figments of a pre-existing reality, (much like we can see the light of a star long gone), that is lead on a certain sequence of occurences, (like destiny or an echo), but has been distorted slightly, which has lead to much of our existence being impossible to explain, (like a key factor is missing).

    Damn! I need to lay off the Tiger blood! XD

    (EDIT: so yeah, we are the demons!)
  • edited March 2011
    Ghosts don't exist. Existence is a dimensional term. Everything within these dimensions we observe is only partial, we have a limited, even if vast knowledge of these things. Our existence is only what we can put into words, academics...

    Spirits if existent are on a further removed plain of existence than are most things that "exist". Like wise, the supposed existence of spirits, is that only a few of us with the abilities to see such things can even see spirits. Spirits and mediums for example.

    Which brings into this the topic, really, essentially, this is a good example, perhaps. Where as it's not magic, if people like these mediums can really communicate with ghosts its probably in that brain of theirs, that we only use very little of, the lot of us...We don't use lots of our brain.

    After all facts come from some sort of experience, or first hand observation, other wise you have theories.

    The mind/ brain doesn't fully experience anything, we are limited. Most of us, all of us But, some of us have gifts.

    Ghosts DONT EXIST. That doesn't mean that I don't believe in them and it doesn't mean that i don't believe there is a life after death.

    The shocking stories of ghosts are usually evident when physical objects in this reality are moved, thrown across rooms, etc etc, to a non gifted...That's one of the few ways to get a non gifted to truly believe. It's consider a phenomenon when this happens...

    I've seen and heard spirits when in a deeply sedated state, but still aware, likely experiencing a unique set of brain waves. Of course as you are fully once again aware as human, you can make excuses, explain things away. You can explain things, functioning as before, as a complete human being, brain waves and all. Where as near death/ out of body experiences are often the same and mysteriously sound like ghost experiences...

    So I believe in ghosts, I believe that they exist, but they don't exist :D
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Sherlock Holmes once said that from a drop of water a man can deduce the existence of an ocean.

    First off, quoting a fictional character in a discussion about logic and possibilities is kind of tacky. Second off, the quote's wrong. Here's the actual quote.
    "From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other."

    This does not mean that a drop of water is proof of the Atlantic. It means that water does in fact exist. From there you could make a hypothesis that larger bodies do exist, but until you actually prove that it exists, you're left with only the drop of water.

    And even then, this analogy doesn't even work, because you have no proof of the supernatural other than the act of not knowing how something happened.
    DAISHI wrote: »
    From the existence of life, I do not believe there is anything supernatural or magical about deducing superior life. Some may deem this supernatural, but I believe it to simply be a deduction.

    Might I ask why you would even come to this line of reasoning?
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic, as the old saying goes.

    This quote basically says that the supernatural doesn't exist. You do realize this, right?
  • edited March 2011
    I don't think he ever said he was a hard core believer, to be fair. He's a skeptic.
  • edited March 2011
    Giant Tope wrote: »
    First off, quoting a fictional character in a discussion about logic and possibilities is kind of tacky. Second off, the quote's wrong. Here's the actual quote.



    This does not mean that a drop of water is proof of the Atlantic. It means that water does in fact exist. From there you could make a hypothesis that larger bodies do exist, but until you actually prove that it exists, you're left with only the drop of water.

    And even then, this analogy doesn't even work, because you have no proof of the supernatural other than the act of not knowing how something happened.



    Might I ask why you would even come to this line of reasoning?



    This quote basically says that the supernatural doesn't exist. You do realize this, right?

    I don't believe in the supernatural.

    Or more to say, I don't believe postulating alternative or higher forms of life necessitates the supernatural.
  • edited March 2011
    Agreed.

    I always enjoy bringing up out of body experiences/ near death experiences in these threads. Why? Because some times these people are literally dead on the table and get revived.

    I believe that these stories could reveal alot about what comes after death. The problem is that charlatans and religious fanatics take these stories and use them in order to try to convince you of something...

    I truly, deeply believe, that there is evidence of the paranormal, real evidence. It's just that people have taken years and years to discredit it. With egos, creed, lust, all those imperfect human thoughts and feelings.

    I honestly think that science, real science, has very little to do with anything in our lives.

    We live in a world of academics, a world of magazines, news, a world of money, profit, commercialism. We're all just part of a economy, government, culture. We live in a world of secrets, reputations, businesses.

    Don't think they're aren't agendas. Science ultimately doesn't make the agendas. Technology is a whole other animal of it's own, health is the same.

    What do all those technologies which the military has used for 10 years before you even see them, have to do with your reality?

    The reason we don't have several answers to reality, is not because they're unknown. It would scare most of you into a rabid panic to know the truths. It's because we aren't deserving and it's because our civilization is ordinary, natural, and not extraordinary and at that level.

    We are greedy, selfish, twisted. And so we respond to greedy profits, businesses, agendas. Above all of this is a whole other civilization that our ordinary lives will never be witness.

    We'd then have expectations for those above us, those around us. This new knowledge, this new POWER. We'd abuse it like a child with fire. We're cavemen, we're primitive creatures stumbling out of the night.

    Their is a reality far above your limited dimensions, thoughts, your petty thoughts. It pays better to keep such huge secrets than it does to let them all out into the world. And, in the long run, by our greatest minds, it's understood that it's better kept away from the average human being.
  • edited March 2011
    I don't believe in either.

    trollface.jpg
  • edited March 2011
    Belief is a concept, not a reality!
  • edited March 2011
    I think alpha waves are groovy for adventure games.
  • edited March 2011
    Alpha waves are associated with creativity. So, I could see that. :)
  • edited March 2011
    It continues.
    A wrote: »
    B wrote: »
    C wrote: »
    I also have said before that belief is a concept , not a reality.

    Even if you believe something that is real?

    When a person is young it is more important to them to try to determine reality on their own rather than to be told what it is.

    Consequently I came across the same tired and hackneyed beliefs of various people who have been discredited throughout history (first mover argument), whether after reading or independent of knowing of these arguments. It's a part of learning

    As for belief as a concept as opposed to realization of reality - know that your sensory faculties have no choice but to bombard you with sensations of reality. As far as Morpheus and Descartes would have you believe, just because sensations are impulses interpreted by your brain doesn't make them unreal - that you feel sensation means that there is something causing the sensation. If you misinterpret it, it doesn't change that you saw or felt or believed something.

    I lost track of who it was (thunderfoot probably) on youtube, but he made the point that if you saw a lumbering tyrannosaurus walk down the road and around a corner, and then despite your best efforts you were not able to obtain any evidence to prove this (not eye witness confirmation of people on that street, no foot prints, no dna evidence, no video surveillance, etc), you will HAVE to eventually conclude that what you thought you saw may not have been as you thought.

    This is why belief and concepts alone are not a good gauge of reality, for they can be faulty or fallacious or completely false.
    SPiRiT wrote: »
    Just because something exists, that doesn't mean that it "exists"

    Actually, that's exactly, literally what it means. Putting a word in quotations doesn't change its meaning. If you want to use a word other than "exists," try, you know using that word instead
    You aren't even aware, most likely, of the several dimensions of reality around yours. Of course, it's nonsensical, it's 4th dimensional.
    The 4th dimension is time. I hope most of us are already aware of the existence of time. The past is generally rather well documented. More well documented than it should be, really. Who wants to lose a job opportunity at the age of 50 because of something they said when they were 12?

    SPiRiT wrote: »
    I was using it as a example, not a literal scientific argument.

    Anyways, if you're not going to think creatively, abstract, with me, I don't see the point of having a conversation.

    If you would, will, it's apples to oranges.

    The meaning of a word is not the same thing as the concept of a word. We only have a limited understanding of the meanings of words. How we define things often changes over time, take that for the fourth dimension.
    concept wrote:
    1. an idea, esp an abstract idea: the concepts of biology
    2. philosophy a general idea or notion that corresponds to some class of entities and that consists of the characteristic or essential features of the class
    3. philosophy
    a. the conjunction of all the characteristic features of something
    b. a theoretical construct within some theory
    c. a directly intuited object of thought
    d. the meaning of a predicate
    4. ( modifier ) (of a product, esp a car) created as an exercise to demonstrate the technical skills and imagination of the designers, and not intended for mass production or sale
    Meaning wrote:
    a : the thing one intends to convey especially by language : purport b : the thing that is conveyed especially by language : import
    2
    : something meant or intended : aim
    3
    : significant quality; especially : implication of a hidden or special significance
    4
    a : the logical connotation of a word or phrase b : the logical denotation or extension of a word or phrase
    — meaning adjective
    — mean·ing·ly \-niŋ-lē\ adverb

    Language is a limitation to understanding the universe. I know you might disagree and I don't have the time, interest, to explain the concept to you. You might have time to disagree and put together a argument,that's fine. And logic, well that's like math, and although there's plenty of that to go around, their will always be more...Trying to define things because of equations and calculations is purely academic. These things are validated by human existence, but ultimately their is far greater depth to the universe.


    Take coding for example though, in abstract sense.
    wrote:
    Well, I program in C++, and really isn't something you can't do. At least it is the most flexible programming language. If you want something flexible, take C. And I'll give you some more advice: Take C++. C has some really annoying things that C++ fixes. There really aren't limitations. And C and C++ are good. They're the ones you'd start out with, and the ones I'm continuing in, but if you really liked classes in C, you could try Java. It's really class - based.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_limitation_of_c_language#ixzz1GloQdzD7

    You might be surprised how often reality is compared to a computer.
  • edited March 2011
    DAISHI wrote: »
    Altering brain wave activity may put you into a coma. The issue of human perception of the surrounding universe goes beyond something as simple as brain waves.

    yea me and my friend where bored so I thought it would be cool to alter each others brain waves for a laugh. Now hes in a coma any idea how to fix him before his folks come home?
  • edited March 2011
    coolsome wrote: »
    yea me and my friend where bored so I thought it would be cool to alter each others brain waves for a laugh. Now hes in a coma any idea how to fix him before his folks come home?

    Now, it all makes sense about George C. I am just joking of course.


    I think what I was getting at is that language is a limitation, and that in reality things are NOT ultimately represented by a language, and that like a computer/ program there's different ways of decoding the universe that as human beings we ultimately can't process.

    YES, essentially, we do discover alot, we are academic, but I'm sure we are defective, limited by our vessels and that there is possibly a whole other way of seeing the universe, if not just far more in depth.
  • edited March 2011
    I'm going to experiment on the brain waves of my dogs. Yes, they will be my experiments.

    YES YES!!! it's working, my dog Jasper is a good subject to the experiments!
  • edited March 2011
    I don't want to try one, but I might try a OBE
    wrote:
    As the real me. This question is hard to answer, if we are confined to physical reality. People have died for a short period of time in what is called a NDE (near-death experience) and write about seeing their soul and recognizing that it is the real person, not their body.

    I did go through such an experience, and while my body was being smashed in the accident, the real me, my soul, was going through another experience at the same time.

    We are complex beings, we have a soul and spirit housed inside a body.

    This is along the lines of my previous topics, that science and academics are a human experience of the physical universe.This reality is limited, observed, understood in language. The universe is not coded in language. Language is a limitation we create to confine, define our ideas, observations within ideas. We see the universe by what limitations, and definitions we notice.

    We are like a program, software running off a circuit board. Human science observes the physical universe inside of human experience and potential.

    Science is a discipline of studying processes, and a process, discipline of observing processes.

    It's ultimately man made even if true, factual. It's one tiny peek into reality, one tiny version, incomplete data that is worked out from only the human potential to observe it.To collect it.

    We see, think, feel, smell, touch, hear, think, know, believe, question.. In the room around you, in the empty space, beyond your limited observations, and sensory experiences there are layers of invisible dimensions, and in between every little piece of data in that room is contained observations and realizations far above the level of any human being.

    What if outside of your body you weren't even the same? What if there is life outside a body? It's often that those who have NDE(s) often develop intellectual gifts or artistic talents, in what appears to be a freak incident. Forget the term of these individuals. Supposedly you only use little of your brain...
    Is it possible that you can some how continue to exist in energy once the body stops?
  • edited March 2011
    You get one thread for your musings now, doodo. Any new ones will be merged into this one. I'll rename it accordingly as soon as I figure out how.
  • edited March 2011
    doodo! wrote: »
    I'm going to experiment on the brain waves of my dogs. Yes, they will be my experiments.

    YES YES!!! it's working, my dog Jasper is a good subject to the experiments!

    :eek::eek: Your experimenting on a dog? Its not hurting the dog or anything right?
  • edited March 2011
    coolsome wrote: »
    :eek::eek: Your experimenting on a dog? Its not hurting the dog or anything right?

    The dog is a willing subject.
  • edited March 2011
    What exactly are you doing to a dog?
  • edited March 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    What exactly are you doing to a dog?

    Your a mod 2 now!?
  • edited March 2011
    Yeah... they needed more because the boards are growing pretty fast....
  • edited March 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    Yeah... they needed more because the boards are growing pretty fast....

    Congratulations :D
  • edited March 2011
    To illustrate how perception may be wrong, especially concerning the 3rd dimension. Current theoretical postulates have put forth the idea that the third dimension we perceive as depth is an illusion created from a 2 dimensional existence that essentially bends. While we operate in three dimensions because that's how we perceive it, it may not be fundamentally correct to think of existence as being such.
  • edited March 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    What exactly are you doing to a dog?

    Simple, harmless, brain wave entertainment fun.
    DAISHI wrote: »
    To illustrate how perception may be wrong, especially concerning the 3rd dimension. Current theoretical postulates have put forth the idea that the third dimension we perceive as depth is an illusion created from a 2 dimensional existence that essentially bends. While we operate in three dimensions because that's how we perceive it, it may not be fundamentally correct to think of existence as being such.
    How is it that you know so much?
  • edited March 2011
    doodo! wrote: »
    Simple, harmless, brain wave entertainment fun.

    hermes2.jpg
    That just raises further questions!
  • edited March 2011
    How do you know you are effecting the dog? What if you are just thinking how you think a dog would think?

    Also... how do you know the dog is a willing participant?

    AND if successful aren't you afraid you will take a liking to chasing cars?
  • edited March 2011
    Irishmile wrote: »
    How do you know you are effecting the dog? What if you are just thinking how you think a dog would think?

    Also... how do you know the dog is a willing participant?

    AND if successful aren't you afraid you will take a liking to chasing cars?

    Oh, no. I'm experimenting with his brain waves, trying to influence different "centers and faculties" of his brain.
This discussion has been closed.